MAY 122019As you all know by now, I really like to keep my blog light, because the topic is so grave that it’s something of a coping mechanism. But today, I feel I am in a surreal state of mind. Today’s news headlined an article about whales dying and shoring on the California coast at unprecedented rates. Let me take a toll: bees, butterflies, dolphins, whales …. humans are clearly on the same path to extinction.

Those few of us who see the apocalyptic threat to our world are searching for ways to help the public understand the situation at hand. Please, readers, TALK ABOUT IT. I shared the details of the wide harm that Roundup has exacted upon the planet with some random girls in their early twenties this weekend in a sauna in Arizona. They suffer from Ulcerative Colitis and have lost many childhood friends from cancer. They also grew up in the agriculture-heavy Central Valley of California. They didn’t know that Roundup might be a part of it, and were captivated listening to the truth.

Because AgChem and BigPharma will continue to do their best to silence these anti-chemical sentiments, it means we must work overtime on a word-of-mouth basis to spread the word. Even if it makes us look like obsessed, hippy, paranoid weirdos. I don’t mean hanging out on social media and fighting with the other side. I mean talk to the anxious man hunched over in the Pepto Bismol section of Target. Share the word with your fellow dog ladies at the dog park. If nothing else, it will be exposure therapy for those with even slight social anxiety.

In the last year, I have become well aware of the stereotypes of the “activist.” Nevertheless, very shortly, people will understand what we were so concerned about, because the REAL, non-ghostwritten, unmanipulated science tells us so.

On to the trial.

TRIALI’ve learned from experience that Closing Statements seat demand is no joke. Today is even more competitive because the courtroom is so terribly tiny. State court vs federal court budgets, I guess. I arrive at 7am and note that the Monsanto characters are in the front of the line, and I am around 15 deep. Elaine and Christopher Stevick, the Plaintiffs in the upcoming Federal trail, are waiting as well. I happily join them. Sunshiney AOJ appears and joins in line – we’ve divided the day up. I will be covering Plaintiff and AOJ will be covering Defendant.

The crowd is light on the activist front. After watching the Bayer Annual Shareholder Meeting which drew a large crowd of protesters, I wonder how we could be a stone’s throw from UC Berkeley and not have some student protesters at the very least. I suppose the profile of the average Berkeley student has changed over the years, but protesting and Berkeley were for a long time synonymous.

The door to the courthouse finally opens and we pass through security and up to the courtroom. Strangely, some people appear to have jumped in front of the line, which is frustrating given my 5am morning alarm to be sure I got my place. Our odd Monsanto glarer, who has spent most of his time in both the Hardeman and Pilliod trial conspicuously staring at our side of the gallery with remarkably wide eyes (it must be fascinating to stare at our profiles for hours), loudly pipes up to the clerk that no one has the right to cut. The line-shamed people begin to wander towards the back of the line.

I take a closer look and realize that it is Director Oliver Stone and entourage. Brent Wisner’s family closely follows, and I meet Wisner’s mom Helen. She is very friendly and tells me of the adventure that it was raising Brent. It will not shock anyone to hear he was something of a troublemaker in school. Of course, I am sure that he was substantially smarter and more outspoken than everyone else. I ask if his remarkable memory for small details is from her, and she shares that she remembers line-for-line computer code that she wrote 30 years ago. I often don’t even remember where I parked my car an hour earlier.

...

Monsanto has deliberately disregarded consumer safety for 45 years.

Roundup was “literally born in fraud” when it was approved following the fraudulent carcinogen studies performed by the laboratory IBT.

The mouse study performed in 1985 initially found that Roundup was a carcinogen, but was later manipulated to to show a different result. Wisner says that this is: “The definition of manipulating science!”

Wisner walks through all of the prime examples and email proof of Monsanto’s ghostwriting, and how future independent research unknowingly cites and considers the ghostwritten literature in their own analyses.

Monsanto-paid labs manipulated cadaver skin into a leather-like material to create false lab findings of low dermal absorption.Monsanto’s Roundup Freedom to Operate team works to reduce or eliminate restrictions to the sale of their product.

Remember how Monsanto likes to play “Whack-a-mole” and bash down any research that criticizes Roundup or GMOs? Wisner reminds the jury of it in a (hilarious to those of us who know Wisner) reenactment of playing Whack-a-mole. He calls out “WHACK WHACK” and moves his arms wildly as if he is indeed playing the classic carnival game. Yes, I too regret that video is not allowed in the courtroom.

In Monsanto’s internal documents, they mention avoiding future litigation regarding the carcinogenicity of Roundup. Before finishing his infinitely long list of examples of Monsanto crookedness, Wisner passionately argues:

Of all the things that they’re worried about, they’re worried about this happening right now, where a young lawyer, who’s not afraid of them, gets to look at all the documents and talk to 12 or 14 jurors, show them the documents and say, “Good grief.” This is their nightmare.

But we live — I mean, we live every day seeing things around us that are wrong. Okay? Things that we — that’s just not right, that shouldn’t happen. And we’re all powerless to do anything about it. We are. We can’t do anything. I spend my life going, “I wish I could do something about it. I wish I could help this person. I wish I could help that person,” but I can’t. But right now, that’s not the case because you are seeing something that’s wrong, and you are able to actually do something about it. It’s pretty cool.

...

On the topic of punitive damages, Wisner continues: “They can afford it, and they need to pay. Because that’s the kind of number that sends a message to every single boardroom, every single stockholder, every single person in Monsanto that can make a decision about the future. That is a number that changes things.”

Seneff: “CO2 levels just keep going up! I bet glyphosate plays a bigger role in climate change than has been recognized thus far. Multiple papers have shown that glyphosate suppresses the activity of Rubisco, the most common protein in the world. Plants need Rubisco to incorporate inorganic carbon from carbon dioxide into organic matter. It's hard to imagine that this doesn't impact climate change.”

According to MIT scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff, "Glyphosate could easily be present in vaccines due to the fact that certain vaccine viruses including measles in MMR and flu are grown on gelatin derived from the ligaments of pigs fed heavy doses of glyphosate in their GMO feed. Gelatin comes from collagen which has lots of glycine. Livestock feed is allowed to have up to 400 PPM [parts per million] of glyphosate residues by the EPA, thousands of times higher than has been shown to cause harm in numerous studies."

French scientist and glyphosate expert Gilles-Eric Séralini has shown in his research that glyphosate is never used alone. It is always used with adjuvants (co-formulants/other chemicals) and he has found those adjuvants to make Roundup 1,000 times more toxic. The detection of glyphosate in vaccines with this methodology would indicate the presence of other co-formulants which are also toxic.

On Aug. 31, Moms Across America sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, EPA, National Institutes of Health, California Department of Health and Sen. Barbara Boxer requesting that they make it a priority to test vaccines for glyphosate, recall contaminated vaccines and the EPA revoke the license of glyphosate to prevent further contamination.

"This calls for independent scientists, without financial ties to Monsanto, to investigate these findings, and if verified, immediate regulatory and legislative action," said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., co-founder of The Mercury Project. "Lawyers litigating against Monsanto should be looking into the company's awareness of this contamination and its effect on children. The public needs to be ready for Monsanto and vaccine manufacturer backlash by their PR machines on this potentially grave information."

Dr. Toni Bark, founder and medical director of the Center for Disease Prevention and Reversal and co-producer of the movie BOUGHT, had this to say after reviewing the test results:

"I am deeply concerned about injecting glyphosate, a known pesticide, directly into children. Neither Roundup nor glyphosate has been tested for safety as an injectable. Injection is a very different route of entry than oral route. Injected toxins, even in minute doses can have profound effects on the organs and the different systems of the body. In addition, injecting a chemical along with an adjuvant or live virus, can induce severe allergic reactions to that substance as vaccines induce the immune system to create antibodies to whatever is included in the vaccine. Since glyphosate is heavily used in corn, soy, wheat, cotton and other commodities, we can expect to see more severe food allergies in the vaccine recipients. In addition, chemicals in ultra low doses, can have powerful effects on physiology behaving almost as hormones, stimulating or suppressing physiological receptors."

RFK, Jr.: “How business interests deceive, misinform, and buy influence at the expense of public health and safety.”

From the Union of Concerned Scientists

The Disinformation Playbook

How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety

…

Here are five of the most widely used “plays” and some of the many cases where they have been used to block regulations or minimize corporate liability, often with frightening effectiveness—and disastrous repercussions on public health and safety.

The Fake: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate researchThe Blitz: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industryThe Diversion: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none existsThe Screen: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societiesThe Fix: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policyLike public interest organizations, many companies or industry trade associations lobby the government to help enact legislation favorable to their interests. Some companies, however, go so far as to undermine the way federal agencies use science to develop policy, pushing for changes that make it harder for agencies to fulfill their science-based missions, or using political connections to gain access to top-level agency officials. Such actions compromise the government’s ability to protect the public.

Unfortunately, a “revolving door” between industry and government presents a huge opportunity for people with industry ties and clear financial conflicts of interest to hold key decision making positions. Such officials can help develop policies that benefit a former or prospective employer, policies that may live on long after their departure.

While it’s certainly reasonable for industry to participate as a stakeholder in policy decisions, transparency and public vigilance are needed to keep companies from using their deep pockets and powerful networks to promote policies that undermine scientific evidence and threaten public health and safety.

In ordering punitive damages, the jury had to find that Monsanto “engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto” who were acting on behalf of the company.

RFK, Jr.: “Yet more cognitive dissonance at the The New York Times, which expresses outrage at the FDA for routinely approving untested medical devices while supporting mandates compelling our children to endure 70 doses in 54 vaccine shots, none of which has ever been properly safety tested.”

Fyi, did you know that the research information your child has access to at school is also controlled by these agenda seekers?

Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business of Congress,” which included an undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red. Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.

Seneff: “It appears more expedient for the government (EPA) to close down these research efforts aimed at figuring out what's causing our kids to be so sick than to risk finding out exactly which toxic chemicals are responsible. You wouldn't want to face up to the industries responsible for the damage, would you? And then you'd have to deal with the difficult task of getting rid of those chemicals. Better to just let the kids get sick.”

US environment agency cuts funding for kids’ health studies

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision leaves fate of more than a dozen decades-long projects in doubt.

Studies of this length are rare and valuable, because they can reveal associations between environmental exposures early in life and health problems years later. And the mix of threats that kids face changes over time. “Twenty years ago, what we were studying is not the same as what we’re studying today,” says Ruth Etzel, a paediatrician at the EPA who specializes in children’s environmental health. “We have to study children now, in their communities.”

Many environmental-health researchers see the EPA's decision to cut funding for the children’s centres as part of a push by President Donald Trump’s administration to undermine science at the agency, which is responsible for the safety of US air and water. “It works out perfectly for industry,” says Tracey Woodruff, who runs the children’s centre at the University of California, San Francisco. When weighing the harms of a chemical against its benefits, she says, “if EPA doesn’t know, it counts for zero”.

“The Commission has chosen the side of the industry,” PAN’s Chemicals Coordinator Hans Muilerman told De Morgen.

In its report, PAN says that the documents show how top EU Health officials have bent to the demands of “chemical and farming interests” to derail legislation which would have resulted in the ban of 32 dangerous pesticides.

“A number of [EU] health officials, up to the most senior people in the Commission, have used their position to serve the interests of the industry,” Bart Staes, an MEP for the European Greens told De Morgen.

Latham: “I was interviewed on WBAI (New York) this morning. I talked about collusion in government agencies that regulate chemicals, the Monsanto/Bayer Glyphosate judgement, and the impossibility of chemical safety regulation.”

Growing Evidence Tracks the Spread of Neonics Up and Through Branches on the Tree of Life

A Scientific American piece on neonicotinoid insecticides begins with a fascinating story about a wildlife rehab clinic in Montana. In the 1990s, a “bizarre trend” was noticed — an unusual number and diversity of birth defects in roadkill deer and other big game autopsied at the clinic.

Scientists at the clinic pondered what could have possibly changed enough to trigger such a dramatic change in birth defects. One possible explanation was exposures to the new neonic insecticides being applied in the area, a hypothesis published in a 2012 a paper.

…

Unfortunately, this all makes sense, as Scientific American reports, because “90 percent of corn and 50 percent of soybeans in the United States are treated with neonicotinoids” (Daley, 2019). The insecticides are soaked into the seeds, and then move systemically through the plant growing from treated seed. Delivering pesticides via seed treatments requires far less active ingredient per acre, and avoids most, above-ground non-target exposures. But only a small amount – 2% to 20% – of the neonics applied as seed treatments ends up in the plant, so where does the rest of it go?

And then there is one more important piece to this scientific puzzle – the half-life of these chemicals is up to 1,400 days, long enough for it to bioaccumulate in the environment after repeated, annual applications. This helps explain why research teams worldwide are publishing so many papers on the adverse impacts of neonicotinoids on deer, bees, birds, small mammals, and some large ones too.

Up next – Trial in Monsanto’s hometown set for August after $2 billion Roundup cancer verdict

"This evidence against them, their conduct, is the most outrageous I've seen in my 30 years of doing this," Holland said. "The things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff."

That Gordon trial will be followed by a September 9 trial also in St. Louis County in a case brought by plaintiffs Maurice Cohen and Burrell Lamb.

Monsanto's deep roots in the community, including a large employment base and generous charitable donations throughout the area, could favor its chances with local jurors.

But on the flip side, St. Louis is regarded in legal circles as one the most favorable places for plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against corporations and there is a long history of large verdicts against major companies. St. Louis City Court is generally considered the most favorable but St. Louis County is also desired by plaintiffs' attorneys.

OH MY GOSH!!! ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!! Well there you go. Thank you so much Dr. Heydens, whose corruption is littered throughout the Monsanto Papers, for the suggested dollar amount of punitive liability:

…

Next week, there is a meeting in the Federal Court to discuss next steps on upcoming trials. At the end of August, St. Louis will host its first trial, with Monsanto employees testifying live.

Abstract: ...Here, relatively low doses of Glyphosate (5 mg/kg/d), Roundup® (5 mg/kg/day of Glyphosate equivalent), or vehicle were administered by ingestion to Sprague Dawley rats from gestational day (GD) 10 to postpartum day (PD) 22. The treatments significantly altered licking behavior toward pups between PD2 and PD6. We also show in the dams at PD22, Roundup exposure affected the maturation of doublecortin&#8208;immunoreactive new neurons in the dorsal dentate gyrus of the hippocampus of the mother. In addition, the expression of synaptophysin, was upregulated by glyphosate in the dorsal and ventral dentate gyrus and CA3 regions of the hippocampus, and downregulated in the cingulate gyrus. While a direct effect of glyphosate alone or its formulation on the central nervous system is currently not clear, we show here that gut microbiota is significantly altered by the exposure to the pesticides, with significant alteration of the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. This is the first study to provide evidence that glyphosate alone or in formulation (Roundup) differentially affects maternal behavior and modulates neuroplasticity and gut microbiota in the mother.

However, the verdict illustrated in no uncertain terms the jury’s interest in throwing the book at Bayer. Nowhere was this more visible than in an unidentified juror’s reported post-verdict remarks to a Bayer lawyer:

When the company’s lawyer asked a juror after the verdict what the panel wanted to hear from Bayer, the juror responded that he wanted proof the chemical was safe: “I wanted you to get up and drink it.” The juror declined to be identified.&#65279;

A Monsanto lobbyist did once claim in a televised interview that “you could drink a whole quart of [Roundup] and it won’t hurt you,”—though when offered, thought it was a convenient time to end the interview. For the record, since we live in a world of Tide Pods challenges and the like, The Takeout would like to remind you that nobody should drink Roundup, for any reason at any time.

University of California System Halts Use of Glyphosate Herbicide by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D.

The universities’ decision cites “concerns about possible human health and ecological hazards, as well potential legal and reputational risks associated with this category of herbicides.” The suspension follows a campaign to end the use of herbicides across the University of California campuses by Herbicide-Free UC. This initiative started out as an Herbicide-Free Cal campaign that was founded by two UC Berkeley student-athletes in 2017, Mackenzie Feldman and Bridget Gustafson, after they were made aware of herbicides being used around their volleyball court.

“We are shocked to find that the Impossible Burger can have up to 11X higher levels of glyphosate residues than the Beyond Meat Burger according to these samples tested. This new product is being marketed as a solution for “healthy” eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous. Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to destroy gut bacteria, which is where the stronghold of the immune system lies. I am gravely concerned that consumers are being misled to believe the Impossible Burger is healthy.” stated Zen Honeycutt, Executive Director of Moms Across America.

The Impossible Burger is a new genetically modified (GM) plant-based product that was prominently featured at the Natural Products Expo West. Burger King, White Castle, Hard Rock Cafe, Red Robin, Cheesecake Factory** and hundreds of other restaurants now carry the product where it does not have to be labeled or described as GM on the menu. The Impossible Burger is made of GMO soy, which has been shown to cause organ damage in animal studies and has been shown to be significantly different from non GMO soy. The GM ingredients of the Impossible Burger, which includes a genetically modified yeast and GM soy leghemoglobin proteins, 46 of which are undisclosed and untested, are even more concerning to many consumers than the long-term health effects from glyphosate because of the reported immediate allergic reaction potential, which is acknowledged by the manufacturer. The part of the genetically modified soy used in the Impossible Burger has never before been allowed in the human food supply and has not been properly safety tested.

Scott Tips – NHF President since 2007, Food-and-Drug specialist lawyer since 1983, and 19-year Codex veteran – gave convincing arguments as to why the inclusion of GMO foods under the “biofortification” label would be disastrous for consumers. Additionally, NHF argued that leaving it up to national authorities would dilute the goal of Codex, which is harmonization of food standards across country borders. With the World Trade Organization’s enforcement authority over Codex standards since the mid-1990s, more than ever we need assurance that food coming in from other countries is compatible with our own perception and experience of that food item. In other words, how would you like to reach for an item you think is organic only to then find out that that food contained GMOs?

Creating confusion, creating ill-health, and loss of consumer confidence would be the net result in this poor global decision, yet NHF and others fought with skillful argument and this definition of biofortification was not inevitably adopted, as the U.S. had declared it would be. Had this standard been adopted, it would have degraded the organic market, creating a massive loss of consumer confidence. This definition, allowing GMO foods, would have targeted an entire demographic of health-conscious individuals, seeking to deceive them and in so doing, would have undermined their health as we all know the impact of GMO foods: infertility, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal, and immune system disorders, among other things.

Agricultural chemicals aren't helping us to be better farmers, and they certainly aren't helping us make more money — as farm foreclosures abound and half the neighboring farms of my youth are no more.

Quite to the contrary: these chemicals are undermining the economic and agronomic viability of our farms, polluting our water, and causing serious health problems in our communities.

First of all, agricultural chemicals haven't proven nearly as effective as we'd hoped.

Heavy applications of herbicides over many years has led to herbicide-resistant weeds, which means farmers just keep spraying more and more or turn to more potent herbicides in a losing battle against evolution.

Meanwhile, long-term application of chemical fertilizer in combination with recently adopted no-till systems is leading to soil acidification. These acid soils kill or stunt plants, so farmers have to apply lime – piling on yet another chemical to solve the problem created by the first chemical.

…

The other problem with agricultural chemicals is the side effects.

Pesticides don't just kill target organisms: they also harm critters that we need in order to be successful as farmers, like beneficial insects, pollinators, and soil microorganisms.

In fact, many of these chemicals harm us too: pesticides have now been linked to diseases from Alzheimer's to cancer to Parkinson's.

An organic eater can tell when there’s something bad in our food.We get sick. The symptoms come back.I know never to buy from your product again.So your lie that your product is organic will get you one sale.And messaging on social media to beware of your food.

Leah Segedie from Mamavation stated Tuesday; “When we got the test results back, we were shocked. The exact opposite of what we thought would happen, happened. Some of the organic pea protein brands’ products came back with higher levels of glyphosate than the conventional brands.”

Zen: “Pretty sure the movie Wine Country on Netflix was funded by the Grape Grower's Association and possibly therefore, Monsanto. The one scene where they are at an organic vineyard is completely disparaging. They make the vineyard owner look so annoying and they all make disgusted faces regarding the organic wine. I am so sick of the chemical companies buying our media. I, for one, am never drinking conventional wine again. They can have their pesticides!”

“Until our elected leaders in Congress require the EPA to adopt more transparent, science-based practices that prioritize the health of Americans over industry profits, consumers should assume they’re on their own when it comes to protecting themselves and their families.” JFK, Jr.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...jl_CZVN_S_yeXtI

PAN Europe chemicals policy co-ordinator Hans Muilerman said: “It took us years to get these documents. They did everything they could to keep them secret. What the papers revealed shocked me, even after 15 years working on pesticides. How can health officials try and twist a law designed to protect people into something that does the opposite, on behalf of industries causing serious illnesses? We think they want to see a globalised farming system in the mould of Monsanto, free of meaningful regulations. They aimed to allow pesticide exposure higher than what the law intended....”

-----------------------------

Latham: “This is excellent news: "Final notices of cancellation for the registration of 12 neonicotinoid pesticides have been published in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."”

The litigation stems from a 2013 lawsuit brought by CFS on behalf of a coalition of conservationists and beekeepers. The civil complaint accused EPA of failing to protect pollinators, beekeepers, and endangered species from these dangerous pesticides.

Another part of the settlement will play out over time. For the first time, EPA is required to analyze and address the impact of the entire neonicotinoid pesticide class on endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

CFS Legal Director George Kimbrell, who was lead counsel in the case, said the “cancellation of these neonicotinoid pesticides is a hard-won battle and landmark step in the right direction.”

“The war on toxins continues, ” he said in a news release. “We will continue to fight vigilantly to protect our planet, bees, and the environment from these and similar dangerous toxins.”

A relatively new class of pesticides known as neonicotinoid pesticides or “neonics” are the products being canceled under the settlement. Chemically-related to nicotine, these “neonics” interfere with the nervous system of insects, causing tremors, paralysis, and eventual death. They are effective even when administered at shallow doses.

Unlike traditional pesticides, “neonics” are systemic — meaning they are distributed throughout the plant and make the entire plant toxic to insects. Bees and other pollinators are exposed to these toxic chemicals through pollen, nectar, dust, dew droplets on plant leaves, and in the soil where many native bee species nest. These neonics came into heavy use in the mid-2000s at the same time beekeepers were observing widespread cases of colony losses.

“Neonics represent an enormous threat to our bees and pollinators,” said Neil Carmen, pollinator liaison for The Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the case. “Taking these products off the market is absolutely necessary.”

Neonics are 10,000 times more toxic to bees than any other pesticide. They are typically applied as a seed coating, a process by which agrichemicals are mixed together with large batches of seeds in order to coat them before the seeds are planted.

After neonic-coated seeds are planted, the chemicals spread far beyond the crop they are intended for and can contaminate nearby wildflowers, soil, and water — all of which pose significant threats to bees foraging and nesting in the area. It has been known for several years that these chemicals can kill or weaken more than just the targeted pests. Non-target harm can occur to beneficial invertebrates, as well as to birds and other wildlife, through both direct and indirect effects.

The CFS case was originally filed in 2013. In May 2017, the court ruled in favor of the organization and the other plaintiffs. Represented by CFS legal counsel, the plaintiffs included CFS, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Environmental Health, Pesticide Action Network, and four commercial beekeepers, Steve Ellis, Jim Doan, Tom Theobald and Bill Rhodes.

According to CFS, the European Union banned three neonic pesticides from being used on crop fields after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) expressed concern about the harms neonics pose to pollinators. France has also banned the use of two additional neonic pesticides in crop fields and in greenhouses.

In 2017, CFS filed another legal action against EPA demanding that neonic-coated seeds no longer escape regulation. In 2018, CFS filed a notice of intent to sue the Trump Administration for reversing a moratorium on neonic pesticides and genetically-engineered crops in wildlife refuges.

CFS recently endorsed the Protect our Refuges Act of 2019, which would reinstate the moratorium on wildlife refuges, and supports the Save America’s Pollinator’s Act, which would require EPA to take immediate action to protect pollinators from neonics. CFS is also petitioning California to protect four species of bumblebees by adding them to the state’s Endangered Species List.

CFS just launched a free Wild Bee ID app that empowers gardeners to take an active role in bee conservation by identifying the bees in their backyards that are native to North America and the plants those native bees have evolved to pollinate.

RFK, Jr.: “Bayer had a spy sitting with our legal team during Hardeman Trial”

Consultant poses as journalist in Monsanto trial

The relaxed, confident thirtysomething was in fact an employee of Washington-based FTI Consulting, which has a client list that includes Roundup-maker Monsanto and its parent company Bayer.Her assignment was to take notes on the legal proceedings that unfolded in San Francisco in March, FTI spokesman Matthew Bashalany told AFP.

DowDuPont giving generously to lawmakers sitting out a ban on controversial pesticide

The 118 members of Congress who haven’t sponsored a measure to ban chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to brain damage in children, have received many more campaign contributions from the pesticide’s manufacturer.

Ten of the 107 cosponsors of the Ban Toxic Pesticides Act of 2019 reported receiving $14,000 in campaign contributions since 2017 from the Midland, Mich.-based DowDuPont Inc. Federal Election Commission records show 118 of the 330 congressmen who haven’t sponsored the measure received $379,651 from Dow during the same period.

The disparity underscores the high stakes at issue in the long-running battle between environmentalists and Dow, a major corporate ally of the Trump administration..

Dr. Kenneth Spaeth is chief of occupational and environmental medicine at Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y. He said that the UCSD study findings regarding liver disease raise "a whole other area of potential reason to have concern about this product and its widespread use globally."

Gene drives should be treated with the utmost precaution, international scientists conclude in a new and comprehensive study which will be published and presented on May 24 in Bern, Switzerland. The emerging technology is currently not fit for application due to important uncertainties at the scientific, technical and practical levels and due to serious limitations with their functioning, the study shows.

• Military funding is one of the largest resources of gene drive research. This shows that offensive ordefensive weapons are considered as potential applications. However, gene drive R&D for civilian use and for military use cannot be separated.

Controversial Drug Ractopamine Is Back in the News—And Still in Your Food

If you buy industrially produced pork at a U.S. supermarket, it likely contains ractopamine—about 60 – 80 percent of industrial pork producers use the drug. If Trump forces China to allow imports of U.S. pork raised with ractopamine, that percentage could increase—and so will Elanco’s profits.

Pork producers aren’t required to tell you they use ractopamine, so don’t bother looking for it on the label. To avoid it, buy from a trusted local farmer, or look for the American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo—AGA-certified meat prohibits the use of ractopamine.

Industries trying to get the laws changed so journalists can’t access info. They don’t want what happened to Monsanto Bayer to happen to them.The largest lobbying group in Washington is Pharma.Pharma trying to hide something?Kind of like Merck hiding their vaccine failure.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a Monsanto problem

“It’s really disappointing to see the Union of Concerned Scientists working to reduce transparency into how taxpayer-funded science is conducted,” says DC political veteran Mike Ryan, who played a critical role in killing AB700. A former Policy Advisor to Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC, Ryan now runs government affairs for the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS). “I don’t understand why they would choose to be complicit in helping hide records of corporate influence, animal abuse, and other wrongdoings.”

In a recent episode of NPR’s “On the Media” Halpern repeated many of the same arguments against transparency that media organizations have called dangerous. Whether UCS will continue this campaign against the public interest remains unknown.

Cathy Lawson: “Ironic that the likely source of this outbreak is lack of sanitation in agriculture, when it is the implementation of sanitation that has so greatly improved human health.”

A Lethal Industrial Farm Fungus Is Spreading Among Us By Alex Liebman and Rob Wallace, PhD

It is becoming increasingly apparent that C. auris’s resistance, and that of many other fungi species, is traceable to industrial agriculture’s mass application of fungicides. These chemicals approximate the molecular structures of antifungal drugs.

Russia goes after Nestle after discovery of GMO in its breakfast cereals

EXCERPT: According to [Russia’s consumer rights protection watchdog] Rospotrebnadzor, the manufacturer [Nestle] knew about the non-compliance of its Bystrov brand ingredients with the mandatory requirements and did not inform the watchdog about that.

Zucchini, a delicious type of summer squash, is one of the lesser-known GMO risk crops. It is almost exclusively grown in the United States. There are only about 2,500 acres of GMO zucchini—that’s ten small family farms worth. While there are well over 200 different varieties of GMO corn, there are only two known GMO squash events.

Bayer lawyers said in a call with reporters on Wednesday that they intend to challenge the court ruling. The plan is to argue that because the EPA — the United States’ highest regulatory body in this field — concluded that there is no clear link between glyphosate and cancer, Bayer is not liable and all cases against the company should be thrown out.

That doesn’t quite sound like a winning argument and doesn’t quite pass the sniff test, according to Wisner.

“Legally this is preposterous,” Wisner said. “There are lawsuits involving drugs and products that have been approved by the EPA and FDA that won, so there’s a strong body of case law that says that doesn’t excuse you of liability. And compounding that, we have internal Monsanto documents in which they admit this is geno-toxic — they know this causes cancer.”

In the Pilliod case, Wisner’s team introduced Monsanto’s own warning label that they provide their employees as evidence. The label encourages workers to wear chemical goggles, boots and other safety protection when spraying RoundUp. They also procured an internal Monsanto study in which scientists recommended that people wear gloves and boots when using the company’s lawn and garden concentrate.

Animal Doctor: Plague affecting amphibians caused by more than a fungus

Their immune and reproductive systems have been damaged by agricultural petrochemical insecticides. These and other chemicals are in the rain, acidified with carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, that falls ever more unpredictably on wetlands and jungle habitats. The documented disappearance of insects due to similar human causes means many insectivorous amphibians are malnourished or starving. The bats of North America dying from white nose fungal disease are casualties of similar causes.

These losses mean the web of life in many ecosystems, the natural biodiversity, is being destroyed. In the absence of adequate biodiversity controls — namely bats, toads and frogs — harmful insects, such as mosquitoes and ticks, proliferate.

Explosive new evidence confirms Kevin Folta consulted for Bayer, despite all his denials

Michael Balter has also posted an invoice from Folta to Bayer for expenses in March 2018, which also confirms that direct billing and payments have been occurring between Folta and Bayer.

According to Balter, in total Folta “made about $200,000” from consulting for Bayer. Balter also suggests Folta has held stock in both Bayer and Monsanto, which Bayer now owns, despite his many protestations of having no vested interest in the companies whose products he so vigorously defends. Although Balter has not yet revealed what evidence he has for this, when Folta attempted to deny having any significant holdings of this kind, Balter said “you are lying” and even challenged Folta to “sue me and let's let legal discovery establish what stock you own".

Culture club: Why Danone is opening access to thousands of its yogurt strains

Danone will open its collection of 1,800 yogurt strains for research to mark the 100th anniversary of the development of its first yogurt. The move underscores the company's commitment to promoting open science and transparency in research, Danone said in a release.The French company will also grant access to its 193 lactic and bifidobacteria ferment strains at the Biological Resource Center of Institut Pasteur in Paris, as well as the more than 1,600 strains the company has collected at its research and innovation center.

PAN Europe chemicals policy co-ordinator Hans Muilerman said: “It took us years to get these documents. They did everything they could to keep them secret. What the papers revealed shocked me, even after 15 years working on pesticides. How can health officials try and twist a law designed to protect people into something that does the opposite, on behalf of industries causing serious illnesses? We think they want to see a globalised farming system in the mould of Monsanto, free of meaningful regulations. They aimed to allow pesticide exposure higher than what the law intended.

Stage set for new wave of GM plants to be approved and imported after EU electionsRoundup settlement talks set to start between Bayer and cancer victimsCostly cancer lawsuits may spur search to replace world's most common weedkiller

A. Vrilya: “Monsanto/BAYER and their criminal minions need to be sued, tried & publicly executed for Crimes Against Humanity and all web of Life on this planet. BAYER has a notorious history of Crimes Against Humanity & Genocide ~ from financing Hitler and the NAZI's during WW2, to supplying Hitler and the NAZI's with Zyklon-B used to exterminate millions of Jews in the gaz chambers, to using slave labor and human guinea pigs for medical experiments in the concentration camps, to mass killing bees and pollinators with neonics, to genetically modifying our food crops and spraying their poisonous pesticides in our food, soil, air, water and environment...Toxic Food For Thought.”

Bayer hires law firm to investigate Monsanto stakeholder file issue

Monsanto is accused of compiling a file of prominent personalities in hope of influencing their positions on pesticides

…

“Bayer stands for openness and fair dealings with all interest groups,” it added.

“We do not tolerate unethical behavior in our company. Of course, this also applies to data protection regulations in all jurisdictions in which we operate.”

Costco Will Reportedly Stop Selling Roundup After $2B Awarded to Couple Who Claim It Caused Cancer

Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America who created a petition for the big box store to stop selling Roundup, announced the news on her website.

…

“I called the headquarters, and after two days of messages and calls, I did finally confirm with three people that Costco was not ordering Roundup or any glyphosate-based herbicides for the incoming spring shipments,” she wrote.

A representative for Costco told PEOPLE, the company does not “have a statement available about the decision.”

"Non-unique" new GMOs: Barrier to regulation or smokescreen for industry?

The ENGL experts' argument ignores several rather obvious facts about GMOs and patents:

* The whole GMO business model centres on patents and the aggressive marketing of the GMO to farmers, the food industry, or consumers, based on its supposed special qualities. Secret or “stealth” GMOs are of zero benefit to the industry.

* If it's difficult or impossible to enforce the GMO regulation because you can't prove that the modified DNA in a product arose from gene editing, then it is also not possible to patent the product.

* A gene-edited plant is only of interest to the industry if it can patent and own it.

* If the DNA alteration brought about by the gene-editing tool is not unique and already exists in naturally bred plants, it cannot be patented.

* The “new GMO” has to be precisely molecularly characterised in terms of the alterations in its genetic sequence, or it cannot be patented.

* If the gene-editing-induced DNA alteration cannot be detected, the developer cannot protect its patent against competitors who may seek to copy the product or prevent farmers from saving and re-sowing seed (this practice is forbidden with current GMO seeds).

In order for the gene-editing commercial venture to proceed, developers must be able to prove that they have come up with a unique invention. They must characterise the changes brought about to generate the GMO and they must provide a method to detect their GMO.

EXCERPT: Newman and study co-author Richard Johnson, MD, of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said the disease could be caused by heat, a direct health impact of climate change, as well as pesticides like glyphosate.

As the authors conclude, “Our findings support the hypotheses that prenatal and infant pesticide exposures to these substances increase the risks for autism spectrum disorder, and exposures in infancy could contribute to risks for more severely impaired phenotypes with…intellectual disability.”

This study is the largest of its kind to date. The co-authors end their paper ominously: “From a public health and preventive medicine perspective, our findings support the need to avoid prenatal and infant exposure to pesticides to protect early brain development.

We end with a challenge. Look at the aerial photo below of a typical, rural American town, and ask yourself how the pregnant women and babies living here are supposed to avoid pesticide exposure?

This announcement represents yet another attack by the Trump administration on science, public health, and children and families, as well as another wink and nod to industries whose products harm. Says Tracey Woodruff, who runs the University of California, San Francisco Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals Children’s Center: When EPA weights the harms of a chemical against its benefits, this “works out perfectly for industry. . . . If EPA doesn’t know, it counts for zero.” The centers are very concerned that EPA’s withdrawal of support will force them to shutter important, long-term research projects.

The studies conducted by these centers often begin before birth and follow subjects through childhood and into adulthood, yielding unusually rich data that can track, for example, environmental exposures early in life and subsequent and related health problems years later. In addition, these longitudinal studies can adapt to the changing mixes of exposure risks children may face over 20 years or so as they grow from newborns to young adults. Ruth Etzel, MD, a pediatrician at EPA specializing in children’s environmental health, notes, “Twenty years ago, what we were studying is not the same as what we’re studying today. We have to study children now, in their communities.”

In a book I wrote in 2015, I introduced the term “perilous symbioses” in the context of mental illness. Here is simple example. An industry manufactures a toxin that increases the risk for depression (e.g., mercury) and the pharmaceutical industry comes up with a treatment for depression (e.g., antidepressants).

With glyphosate, we have an example of “perilous symbiosis.” Corporations manufacture glyphosate. The pharmaceutical industry works to develop a treatment to mitigate one of the harmful effects. Actually, when the toxic effects are particularly onerous, a third symbiotic beneficiary class, the lawyers, enter the fray. Note the appeal of the August 2018 $289 million finding against Monsanto for a glyphosate-linked terminal cancer. The court settled on $80 million. (I digress. I promised to only talk about livers.) To summarize, the beneficiaries of the perilous symbioses win. We, the public lose.

The FDA should have banned glyphosate years ago. For now, the most we consumers can do is to stay away from it, whether it is in our weed killer, our breakfast cereal, our nonorganic bread or our fast foods. As a prophet said of old, “They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.”

What does GMO mean?What modifications are made to GMOs? What do they do?Aren’t all crops genetically modified because they change over time?What food is GMO?What is genetic engineering?What is biotechnology?What does non-GMO mean?How do products become Non-GMO Project Verified?What does the black and white butterfly logo mean?What does high risk mean? What crops are high risk?Does the Non-GMO Project look at animal feed when evaluating meat or dairy products?What’s the difference between Non-GMO Project Verified and Organic?Are NGPV products tested for chemicals such as glyphosate?Why does the Non-GMO Project verify products like orange juice and salt?Why did I see the word modified or artificial on the ingredient panel of a Non-GMO Project Verified product?How do you test for GMOs made with new techniques such as CRISPR?Do we need GMOs to feed the growing human population?How do GMOs affect farmers?How do GMOs impact the environment?

His company, BlueNalu (a play on a Hawaiian term that means both ocean waves and mindfulness), is racing to bring to market what's known as cell-based seafood --- that is, seafood grown from cells in a lab, not harvested from the oceans.

…

Those cells are then carefully cultivated and fed a proprietary custom blend of liquid vitamins, amino acids and sugars. Eventually, the cells will grow into broad sheets of whole muscle tissue that can be cut into filets and sold fresh, frozen or packaged into other types of seafood entrees.

But unlike today's wild-caught or farmed fish options, BlueNalu's version of seafood will have no head, no tail, no bones, no blood. It's finfish, just without the swimming and breathing part. It's seafood without the sea.

A lot of consumers will find that unacceptable, he says. Gene editing is new, it's powerful, and people will have a host of questions about it. They'll want to know, for instance, whether their own food is genetically edited. "The first step in having a discussion about technology is knowing what's out there," Jaffe says.

Some animal feeds contain as much as 15 percent cottonseed content. Cottonseed and cottonseed meal both contain a high fat content and can be a protein source for animals. Cottonseed hulls can also end up in animal feed as roughage, but this material has little nutritional value. GMOs aside, animals cannot have too much cotton in their diet because cotton contains gossypol; this compound can be toxic to people and animals in sufficiently large quantities. The United States Department of Agriculture recently deregulated a new type of GMO cotton in which the gene responsible for producing gossypol has been switched off. In theory, this would make the resulting cottonseed meal safe for human consumption. This specific type of cotton is not yet commercially available, but most cotton is already genetically modified.

First article is from L&S, an online legal news source. Second article is from UCSD Medical School.

NON-ALCOHOLIC LIVER DISEASE

Seneff: "Why am I not surprised?"

UCSD STUDY: MONSANTO ROUNDUP LINKED TO LIVER DISEASE

June 27, 2019, 3:15PM. By Anne Wallace

IS THIS THE NEW WAVE OF ROUNDUP LAWSUITS?

San Diego, CAA new study, conducted by researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, suggests an association between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in human beings.

...

The pee test said liver disease. It also suggested Roundup.

...

These findings were consistent with an earlier rat study at King’s College in London. That study focused on the molecular composition of female rats’ livers after they were fed an extremely low dose of Roundup weed killer for more than two years. The glyphosate dose from the Roundup-given rats was thousands of times below the level permitted by regulators all over the world. Animals in the study suffered from a form of liver disease similar to that found in the more recent human study. The accumulating evidence is worrying, despite Monsanto’s continued insistence on the safety of its flagship product.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease can lead to increased risk of more serious liver diseases like cirrhosis and an increased risk of diabetes, heart attacks and strokes. In the United States, it is the most common form of chronic liver disease, affecting an estimated 80 to 100 million people. Symptoms may include an enlarged liver, fatigue, pain, abdominal swelling and enlarged breasts in men. The condition is increasingly common around the world, especially in Western nations.

Glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weed killer Roundup, has been linked to liver disease in animal models. In a new study, the first of its kind, researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine report an association between the herbicide and negative effects upon the human liver.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , a team led by Paul J. Mills, PhD, professor and chief in the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health at UC San Diego School of Medicine, examined...

The documents, mostly from 2015 to 2017, were disclosed as part of an ongoing court battle on the health hazards of the company’s Roundup weedkiller. They show:

Monsanto planned a series of “actions” to attack a book authored by Gillam prior to its release, including writing “talking points” for “third parties” to criticize the book and directing “industry and farmer customers” on how to post negative reviews.

Monsanto paid Google to promote search results for “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam” that criticized her work. Monsanto PR staff also internally discussed placing sustained pressure on Reuters, saying they “continue to push back on [Gillam’s] editors very strongly every chance we get”, and that they were hoping “she gets reassigned”.

Monsanto “fusion center” officials wrote a lengthy report about singer Neil Young’s anti-Monsanto advocacy, monitoring his impact on social media, and at one point considering “legal action”. The fusion center also monitored US Right to Know (USRTK), a not-for-profit, producing weekly reports on the organization’s online activity.

Monsanto officials were repeatedly worried about the release of documents on their financial relationships with scientists that could support the allegations they were “covering up unflattering research”.

It's a seal food manufacturer's can get qualified for after they've passed our approval process. It's like the Non-Gmo Verified Project's label but, NGVP only verifies that it's not gmo. NGVP verified foods could still be sprayed with "cides." (Cides: pesticides, hericides, fungicides....)

The USDA organic label is in danger of being ruined by companies that want certain foods, for example, plants grown in water, without soil, to be considered organic - Hydroponics. Like the "revolving door," corporations are getting their people pics on these boards, increasing the possibility of the organic rules being changed so that they can get their poison/dna altered food under the label. Something folks should pay attention to.

In the meantime, folks have a lot of great options for finding organic food. Wegmans, Tops, Trader Joe's, Aldi's, Costco, Whole Foods coming to the Rochester area as well, Henrietta, if I recall correctly. Autumn's Harvest Farm out in Romulus. Felenz Family Farm in Phelps. I've recently heard of the "Green Market" in Ithaca.

Remember "the tipping point of consumer rejection." IRT says we're over the tipping point. Vote with your shopping dollar. Food companies are watching what we are purchasing.

If folks want to follow what is going on, you can follow the Monsanto/bayer lawsuit coverage, more recent science that has come out, etc. at the following pages.

I strongly object to any changes in USDA Organic Standards that would allow organisms created with gene editing, synthetic biology or any other method of genetic engineering in USDA organics. The NOSB must REJECT all methods of genetic engineering and must maintain the prohibition of foods and ingredients created by genetic engineering under USDA Organic Standards. GMOs, whether created by older genetic engineering techniques such as transgenesis or by newer genetic engineering techniques such as gene editing and synthetic biology, should never be allowed under USDA Organic Standards.

Recently, USDA Under Secretary Greg Ibach made comments before the House Agriculture Subcommittee suggesting that gene editing methods be allowed in organic production.This is an affront to organic consumers like me who rely on the USDA Organic label in order to avoid the products of genetic engineering, among other benefits provided by the label.

Decades have been spent by the organic industry, nonprofits and consumer advocacy groups, and individuals like me promoting the values of organic food and agriculture. In addition to the avoidance of synthetic pesticides, the avoidance of the products of genetic engineering is a primary benefit of the organic label. To allow organisms created with gene editing or synthetic biology into organics would be an attack on the core values of the organic sector.

The NOSB must not bow to the pressures of the biotechnology industry. DO NOT allow any form of genetic engineering into organics!

Zen: "We know it seems more convenient not to know. But you know what is really inconvenient?

Infertility when all you want is a baby.

Cancer when all you want to do is go to your daughter's wedding.

Bankruptcy from medical bills when all you want to do is send your son to college.

Those things are inconvenient, and avoidable in most cases, if you learn about what is really going on in the food supply and eat organic instead."

EVERYTHING YOU WISH YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT GMOS

POSTED BY ZEN HONEYCUTT 1GS ON OCTOBER 02, 2019

As a mother, my first and foremost concern is the well being of my family. Many things can threaten the safety of my family, especially our children, who are more vulnerable due to the underdevelopment of their bodies. One of those things is Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs which have been in our food supply for twenty years, unlabeled.

The safety of GMOs has been highly contested. While proponents of GMOs say that they are safe, recent studies show that they have inherent risks. They say that GMOs happen in nature all the time—like a hybrid. However, GMOs are created only in a lab with a gene gun and by a process that scientists have patented to protect their technology. GMOs are not hybrids and cannot occur naturally in nature. Genetic engineering, for example, the altering of DNA with foreign species, or editing out DNA to remove a trait from a species permanently, or altering DNA or RNAi for a desired trait, does not happen naturally. It is not found in nature in any shape or form. The scientists and media that say GMOs are natural are misleading the public. Many of these scientists are not impartial, but are instead supported by advertising dollars or grants to universities from the GMO/chemical manufacturers and have incentives to make these claims. Regardless of their reasoning, they are certainly ignoring the “precautionary principle”— the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. Any scientist worth his or her salt will admit that many aspects of GMOs are still unknown.

Don't get me wrong, I think Monsanto is a horrible company that well deserves criticism, but not at the expense of cherrypicking the science or abandoning the crucial principals of the scientific process in order to manipulate jurors emotions with junk science, as was plainly the case in this situation.

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Timbo, I don't have time or the will to do this all over again and the owner of this forum doesn't like us talking about issues his customers/readers/the uninformed, don't want us talking about. Like human male dna recently found in the MMR vaccine given to every American child at 15 months of age, and poisoned food.

Get on Facebook...

Seneff, Seralini, Pustov, Antinoi, Samsel are just a few of the researchers that have published Papers on Glyphosate. Moms Across America has a "data" page, where you can find links to all the data. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is lead council in the lawsuits against Monsanto/bayer and The Highwire covers it all.

You don't speak for the owner[S] of this forum, and even if you did, that wouldn't make the content of the vast majority of your posts to be any less pseudoscientific, dangerously flawed and utterly mis-informative.

As for RFK Jr., even THIS loyal, died-in-the-wool liberal can conclusively make sense of Kennedy's appallingly poor record of scientific knowledge by pointing to his published screed "Deadly Immunity" which has been roundly discredited by the entire science community for its lack of peer-review, willful dishonesty, misinformation and gross distortions. As a lawyer and staunch environmentalist, I respect his efforts. He is a generally stalwart fellow and friend of the working man, unfortunately, the depth of his plunge into vaccine hysteria and conspiracy theory however, is a most unfavorable aspect of his legacy.

As for Cell Line Science, your assertions about human DNA being present in certain vaccines is patently FALSE. As a result of recombinant technology and the inevitable generational/chemical effects result in nothing that could ultimately in any way, shape or form be accurately defined as 'human' or 'DNA'. Furthermore, genes are neither DNA (nor RNA for that matter). A gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that encodes the synthesis of a gene product, either RNA or (in THIS case) protein.

You simply have no idea of what you're talking about, and should not parrot back the conspiracies of which you follow. Otherwise, the end result is inevitably what you have here on display... an uneducated (albeit well-intentioned) promulgation of falsehoods, by presuming to speak for learned science and the actual facts, and creating precisely that which you intend on preventing.